655:
unilateral, since Gerard in effect both proposed deletion and acted on the proposal. Second, there is really no argument that the db-repost criteria were met; the recreated version added two claims of significance not found in the original article: a current IPO and listing of an associated fund on an NYSE exchange. This is a nontrivial advance beyond the claims of the deleted text, and should have defeated G4. Third, the basis cited for applying G4 is clearly inappropriate. David Gerard stated above that the major new source, "the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview". This is nonsense. Putting aside the insistence that coverage in the US's most important financial newspaper is no different from puff pieces on clickbait-heavy
Internet aggregation sites, just examining the WSJ piece puts the lie to the claim of identical coverage. The WSJ piece is a bylined article by a staff reporter drawing on multiple sources, including at least two different interviews. The idea that journalism in a highly reputable publication somehow becomes unreliable or unsuitable for demonstrating notability is utterly ungrounded in policy or guideline, and makes no sense whatever in the context of building an encyclopedia. If the deleting admin does not understand this, he is all but certainly not
396:
looked at the most recent deleted version (and I will be happy to do a temp undelete if any non-admin wants to see it). Many of the sources are indeed interviews or seem to be based largely on info from the company, and are therefore not independent, and should not count towards the GNG. (I do not, however, think it fair to describe most of them as "Churnlism".) The recent WSJ article is behind a paywall. I can only see the opening lines, but they do not seem like the start of an interview piece. It is at
409:. My suggestion is that the deleted article be restored and promptly moved to Draft, until such time as development of the draft can convince an uninvolved admin, or a future DRV discussion, to unsalt the title in mainspace. The draft may be put through the AfC process, indeed I think that would be a good idea, but that should not be mandatory.
405:
to be fully independent, that is just one source. I am not sure that the other cited sources in the deleted article are enough to clearly pass the GNG. It seems that the company
Diamond Standard has yet to start full operatrions. When it does so, there may well be significant additional coverage. This may be a case of
395:
I was notified of this DRV on my talk page by Nixie9, I suppose because I commented in the AfD on a previous version of this article -- which I had completely forgotten. But since I am pretty regular in reading and commenting on DRV posts, I am sure I would have seen this and commented in any case. I
487:
Paragraph 2 is sourced to the company. Paragraph 5 has a quote from the CEO. The last paragraph (21 I think) is sourced to someone who has an investment in the company. The rest is either sourced to specific external people or in the author's own voice and includes things like a brief history of
404:
dated 23 Sept 2020 refers to and quotes the WSJ piece several times. It does not make it sound like an interview piece. Note that merely quoting a company spokesperson or CEO does not make an article an interview if there is also independent reporting. However, even if the WSJ article is considered
317:
brings a lot of unwarranted opinion, defensiveness, accusations, and hyperbole to this discussion. Baggage that should lead him to let others take the lead on the DRV and AfD. The company is not a crypto company. As noted in a front page, filling 3/4 of a page, WSJ article, the company has approval
81:
Opinions are divided about whether the deletion should simply be overturned, or whether the content should be sent to draftspace or AfD instead. As per the closing instructions, a lack of consensus regarding a speedy deletion means that it should be undone. Editors are free to submit the article to
373:
I suggest limiting the discussion to the merits of the article, and not to accusations or comments about other editors here. David Gerard is a very experienced, long term editor with a good reputation here. He may be mistaken in some cases, as all of us may, but I am confident he is doing what he
439:
I have briefly read the (paywalled) WSJ article linked above and echo the concerns about its independence; it does seem quite heavily dependent on an interview with the founder. I agree with DES and David Gerard that restoring as Draft, and a more careful consideration of sources there prior to
677:
and judge it in the usual way
Looking at it . there's a reasonable chance o actual notability, and sufficient references. I share some of the skepticism bout topics in theis general area, but there can be genuine new and imporant developments. 'm not going to join in the censure directed at
654:
leaves little room for argument: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past . . . disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." This misuse of authority is compounded by the fact that his action was completely
472:
I'm away from the computer where I have a WSJ subscription, so I can't check again, but I recall an unsourced first paragraph, a clear quote/paraphrase from founder in 2nd or 3rd para giving the impression that he is the primary source for the article, and little evidence of journalistic
616:. The article itself is largely the same as before, but the sourcing is now *much* better. I don't know if this would make it at AfD, but one really good source would probably have been enough to overcome deletion at the AfD. I think this is that source. Let AfD make the call.
225:
for being based on interviews. Nixie9 recreated it based on a new reference from WSJ! ... which was another interview. That is, the precise sort of reference the article was deleted for. If he did not realise the WSJ article constituted just yet another interview, he may not be
350:, why does DG feel it necessary to tar me with conspiracy theory claims, denigration about posting frequency, and insinuation about connections? I've created dozens of articles over 8 years, and now I have a job. I find this particular subject fascinating, because DIAMONDS!.
556:, well, I went ahead and temp undeleted for the discussion. I don't have an opinion at the moment, but I'll suggest to Nixie9 that the most successful practice at DRV for cases deleted on notability grounds is to identify the three best sources for establishing notability.
192:. The new article is substantially different from the deleted version, and the reason for the prior deletion no longer applies. All crypto-related and interview-based references were removed, and the subject was recently substantially and independently covered in
612:
The WSJ article is, well, in the WSJ. And it appears to have only one quote from the founder--hardly an interview. The author, while not the biggest name in the field, writes articles that can hardly be accused of being "Churnlism"
534:
is or is not substantially simialr to the version you deleted after the AfD or not. You might have a view on that point, and on whether the addition of the WSJ article makes a significant difference. Or, of course, you might not.
697:. The last AfD was not recent, over 6 months, and someone claims new better sources. AfD is the proper forum to resolve the question. If SNOW deleted, the G4 deleting admin may feel validated; if kept, then chided. --
718:: it's not identical, in no small part because there are new sources like WSJ added, and other sources removed, plus text changed. It's clear these changes were intended to address the concerns at the AFD. Also, DG is
659:
to assess sources suitably. No opinion as to the underlying notability issue, but I don't think this should go to AFD until a proponent of deletion can articulate a policy-based rationale for deletion.
268:
suggested salting the article. Today was the fourth deletion, and that's why I salted it against recreation. I have suggested that Nixie9 please consider that perhaps he's doing this wrong -
254:, I asked Nixie9 if he had a commercial conflict of interest, and he said no. However, he did go on to claim a conspiracy of administrators against him to delete the article.
222:
167:
48:
34:
513:
I see that it's my AFD close that's up for discussion but since Nixie9 apparently isn't contesting it I have no comments. If I am wrong feel free to point it out.
265:
43:
722:
and should not be using admin tools with respect to this article. If the speedy is overturned and thereafter someone wants to take it to AFD, they can.
155:
662:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
247:
176:
39:
397:
401:
665:
587:
that consists mostly of insulting one of the admins will get only cursory attention. This appeal consists mostly of insulting
726:
541:
415:
380:
21:
243:
645:
and should not have taken administrative action here. He proposed speedying the prior version of the article in 2019
661:
591:, and that isn't useful. The title isn't salted in draft space. If a draft is submitted for review, the reviewer
264:
Nixie9 has created this same article repeatedly, and it was deleted three times before today by multiple admins. A
772:
603:
105:
17:
326:. Not that DG bothered to learn anything before rapid-deleting. I suggest that admins evaluate for themselves.
761:
732:
706:
689:
669:
628:
607:
565:
546:
522:
518:
500:
482:
467:
449:
434:
420:
385:
365:
341:
307:
277:
215:
193:
94:
196:. Following 18 months of Bloomberg, Fox, Royal Gazette and other coverage, and the subject surely achieves
715:
430:
303:
273:
125:
757:
599:
530:
The issue raised by Nixie9 , seems to be whether the version recently deleted as a recreation under
702:
678:
thegenerally excelllent of the closing admin, but a second independent evaluation would do n harm.
287:
741:
729:
719:
651:
539:
527:
514:
413:
378:
257:
I suggested that if Nixie really wanted the article, that he create it through AFC, and not base
490:
I find with the WSJ if you just keep loading the article it will let you see it after a while...
398:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/easy-diamond-trading-set-to-be-available-for-first-time-11600680611
235:
In that AFD, Nixie9 repeatedly just failed to understand how everyone else was judging sources.
640:
588:
478:
445:
426:
406:
314:
299:
286:, and Nixie9's edits on it, are blockchain-related, so are under the restrictions detailed at
269:
185:
359:
335:
283:
251:
209:
121:
70:
753:
624:
560:
496:
463:
374:
thinks best to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you will do your best to the same goal.
752:
in the 2019 AfD. If it is determined that this is G4 material let someone else delete.
698:
85:
723:
685:
656:
584:
576:
536:
531:
410:
375:
347:
227:
197:
580:
474:
441:
189:
76:
614:
370:
352:
328:
202:
620:
557:
492:
459:
458:
quote from the founder? Everything else is sourced to external folks AFAICT.
473:
independence. I'm sorry, I won't have access again until post-DRV closure.
680:
488:
the world diamond market. It is by no means an "interview" with the CEO.
221:
The article was substantially the same as the version deleted at
323:
319:
440:(potentially) moving to mainspace, seems a good way forward.
714:- (voted delete in the original AFD) - not a G4 based on
749:
745:
649:
646:
295:
291:
162:
148:
140:
132:
598:
an undeleted copy of the deleted article to compare.
318:
for CFTC licensed futures and options, and an active
223:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Diamond Standard
8:
104:The following is an archived debate of the
648:. He !voted to delete in the ensuing AFD.
63:
454:I just read it too. Isn't there just
7:
643:is clearly an involved administrator
775:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
771:The above is an archive of the
400:in case anyone has access. The
733:21:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
707:06:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
690:05:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
670:04:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
629:03:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
608:16:13, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
566:16:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
547:16:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
523:15:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
501:16:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
483:12:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
468:03:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
450:03:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
435:17:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
421:15:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
386:15:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
366:14:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
342:13:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
308:13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
278:13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
252:User_talk:Nixie9#November_2019
216:13:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
261:of the sources on interviews.
618:Overturn speedy, list at AfD
292:notified of the restrictions
762:20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
346:p.s. If the subject is not
294:in late 2019, but promptly
230:to assess sources suitably.
95:08:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
79:speedy deletion overturned.
798:
675:Permit creation of draft,
322:filing for an ETF on the
238:The editor has edited on
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
778:Please do not modify it.
282:I should note also that
111:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
194:The Wall Street Journal
402:royal gazette article
298:from his talk page -
248:deleted contributions
290:- he was previously
184:The deleting admin,
740:Gerard was clearly
242:in the past year. (
108:of the page above.
748:in 2019, and then
296:deleted the notice
785:
784:
746:proposed a speedy
641:User:David Gerard
589:User:David Gerard
583:. Any appeal to
543:DESiegel Contribs
491:
417:DESiegel Contribs
382:DESiegel Contribs
93:
59:28 September 2020
49:2020 September 29
35:2020 September 27
789:
780:
750:!voted to delete
638:. First of all,
563:
489:
425:Draft is good -
393:Restore as Draft
364:
362:
357:
340:
338:
333:
284:Diamond Standard
214:
212:
207:
179:
174:
165:
151:
143:
135:
122:Diamond Standard
113:
92:
90:
83:
71:Diamond Standard
64:
53:
33:
797:
796:
792:
791:
790:
788:
787:
786:
776:
773:deletion review
712:Overturn speedy
636:Overturn speedy
600:Robert McClenon
597:
594:
593:should be given
561:
544:
418:
383:
360:
353:
351:
336:
329:
327:
240:no other topics
210:
203:
201:
175:
173:
170:
161:
160:
154:
147:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
109:
106:deletion review
86:
84:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
795:
793:
783:
782:
767:
766:
765:
764:
735:
709:
692:
672:
632:
631:
610:
595:
592:
569:
568:
551:
550:
549:
542:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
437:
416:
390:
389:
388:
381:
368:
311:
310:
280:
262:
255:
236:
232:
231:
182:
181:
171:
158:
152:
144:
136:
128:
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
61:
56:
47:
44:2020 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
794:
781:
779:
774:
769:
768:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
734:
731:
728:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
691:
687:
683:
682:
676:
673:
671:
667:
663:
658:
653:
650:
647:
644:
642:
637:
634:
633:
630:
626:
622:
619:
615:
611:
609:
605:
601:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
570:
567:
564:
559:
555:
552:
548:
545:
540:
538:
533:
529:
528:Jo-Jo Eumerus
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
515:Jo-Jo Eumerus
512:
502:
498:
494:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
438:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
419:
414:
412:
408:
403:
399:
394:
391:
387:
384:
379:
377:
372:
369:
367:
363:
358:
356:
349:
345:
344:
343:
339:
334:
332:
325:
321:
316:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:
256:
253:
249:
245:
244:Contributions
241:
237:
234:
233:
229:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
208:
206:
199:
195:
191:
188:, misapplied
187:
178:
169:
164:
157:
150:
142:
134:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
91:
89:
80:
78:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
777:
770:
737:
711:
694:
679:
674:
639:
635:
617:
572:
553:
455:
427:David Gerard
392:
354:
330:
315:David Gerard
300:David Gerard
288:WP:GS/Crypto
270:David Gerard
266:previous DRV
258:
239:
204:
186:David Gerard
183:
110:
103:
87:
75:
69:
58:
742:WP:INVOLVED
720:WP:INVOLVED
695:Send to AfD
652:WP:INVOLVED
575:either the
82:AfD again.
754:Lightburst
407:WP:TOOSOON
88:Sandstein
699:SmokeyJoe
657:competent
228:competent
738:Overturn
716:the diff
20: |
579:or the
573:Endorse
554:Comment
475:Martinp
442:Martinp
177:restore
141:history
371:Nixie9
355:Nixie9
348:WP:GNG
331:Nixie9
250:.) At
205:Nixie9
198:WP:GNG
686:talk
621:Hobit
493:Hobit
460:Hobit
190:WP:G4
163:watch
156:links
77:WP:G4
52:: -->
16:<
758:talk
703:talk
666:talk
625:talk
604:talk
596:has
558:Wily
519:talk
497:talk
479:talk
464:talk
446:talk
431:talk
324:NYSE
304:talk
274:talk
149:logs
133:edit
126:talk
32:<
730:ich
727:v!v
681:DGG
585:DRV
577:AFD
537:DES
456:one
411:DES
376:DES
320:SEC
259:any
168:XfD
166:) (
22:Log
760:)
744:-
724:Le
705:)
688:)
668:)
627:)
606:)
581:G4
532:G4
521:)
499:)
481:)
466:)
448:)
433:)
306:)
276:)
246:,
200:.
74:–
42::
756:(
701:(
684:(
664:(
623:(
602:(
562:D
517:(
495:(
477:(
462:(
444:(
429:(
361:✉
337:✉
302:(
272:(
211:✉
180:)
172:|
159:|
153:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
124:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.